DOCSLIB.ORG

Realigning Elections What Happens in a Realigning Election?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

3/30/2020 PARTY SYSTEMS IN THE UNITED STATES Federalists vs. Jeffersonians (Democratic- 1800-1824 Republicans) 1828-1856 Democrats vs. Whigs Republicans vs. Democrats (Republican 1860-1896 Dominance) Republicans vs. Democrats (Republican 1896-1932 Dominance) (new coalition) Democrats vs. Republicans (Democratic 1932-1980 Dominance) (New Deal Coalition) 1980-present Divided Government Karen McPherson Osher Institute Spring 2020 144 144 Realigning Elections Year Candidates Precipitating Event 1800 Thomas Jefferson (D-R) Economics Aaron Burr (D-R) 1828 Andrew Jackson (D-R) Tariffs, sectionalism John Quincy Adams (D-R) 1860 Abraham Lincoln (R) Slavery, states rights vs. nationalism Stephen A. Douglas (D) 1896 William McKinley (R) Economic Panic 1893 William Jennings Bryan (D) 1932 Franklin D. Roosevelt (D) Great Depression Herbert Hoover (R) 1980 Ronald Reagan (R) Economics, Civil Rights Jimmy Carter (D) Karen McPherson Osher Institute Spring 2020 145 145 What Happens in a Realigning Election? 1. A new powerful and divisive issue disrupts the existing political order. 2. Voters shift their support strongly in favor of one party 3. The newly strong party brings about major policy change. 4. The party coalitions shift, giving long-term advantage to the newly dominant party Karen McPherson Osher Institute Spring 2020 146 146 1 3/30/2020 Karen McPherson Osher Institute Spring 2020 147 147 First Party System 1800-1824 Federalists Democratic-Republicans • Strong Central Government • States rights • Loose Constructionists • Strict Constructionists • Banking, Manufacturing • Agricultural • Order and “good • Individual liberties, popular government” democracy • New England • South and Mid-Atlantic • Hamilton, Adams, Marshall • Jefferson, Madison, Gallatin • Appealed to elites • Appealed to a broader Karen McPherson Osher Institute Spring 2020 popular base 148 148 Federalist poster about 1800. Washington (in heaven) tells partisans to keep the pillars of Federalism, Republicanism Karenand McPherson Democracy Osher Institute Spring 2020 149 149 2 3/30/2020 Realigning Election – 1828 1824 1828 Blue denotes states won by Jackson, Blue denotes states won by orange denotes those won by Crawford, Jackson. Light Yellow denotes green denotes those won by Adams, denotes those won by Adams. yellow denotes those won by Clay Karen McPherson Osher Institute Spring 2020 150 150 2nd Party System 1828-60 Nat’l Republicans (Whigs) Democrats • “American System” • States rights, Low Tariffs • Split on Slavery • Slave Power • Internal Development • Westward Expansion • Powerful Congress • Powerful Presidency • Modernity • Tradition • Clay, Webster • Jackson, Polk • Appealed to modernizers, • Appealed to yeoman businessmen, bankers, farmers, planters, workers, Karen McPhersonProtestant Osher Institute SpringEvangelicals 2020 immigrants, Catholics 151 151 Karen McPherson Osher Institute Spring 2020 152 152 3 3/30/2020 Realigning Election – 1860 1856 1860 Blue denotes states won by Buchanan, Blue denotes states won by Douglas, Red denotes those won by Fremont, Red denotes those won by Lincoln, Lilac denotes those won by Fillmore green denotes those won by Breckenridge, orange denotes those won by Bell Karen McPherson Osher Institute Spring 2020 153 153 3rd Party System 1860-1896 Republicans Democrats • National Economic Policies • Laissez-Faire Policies • Hard Money (gold standard) • Silver, Greenbacks • Protective Tariffs • Low Tariffs • Northeast • Solid South • Appealed to businessmen, • Appealed to small farmers, industrialists, blacks unskilled labor, immigrants Karen McPherson Osher Institute Spring 2020 154 154 Realigning Election – 1896 1892 1896 Red denotes states won by Harrison, Red denotes states won by McKinley, blue denotes those won by Cleveland, blue denotes those won by Bryan green denotes those won by Weaver Karen McPherson Osher Institute Spring 2020 155 155 4 3/30/2020 4th Party System 1896-1932 Republicans Democrats • Big Business • Populist and Progressive • Imperialism • Anti-Imperialist • McKinley, T. Roosevelt, • Wilson, William Jennings Coolidge, Hoover Bryan • Appealed to businessmen, • Appealed to western corporations farmers, immigrants, Catholics, urban voters • Supported Prohibition • Mixed on Prohibition Karen McPherson Osher Institute Spring 2020 156 156 Realigning Election – 1932 1928 1932 Red denotes states won by Hoover, Red denotes states won by Hoover, blue denotes those won by Smith blue denotes those won by Roosevelt Karen McPherson Osher Institute Spring 2020 157 157 5th Party System 1932-1980 Republicans Democrats • Economic conservatism – • Keynesian economics laissez-faire • Strict Constructionists • Loose Constructionists • Military, “Hawks” • Diplomacy, “Doves” • Northeast, Midwest • South • Goldwater, Eisenhower, • Roosevelt, Truman, Rockefeller, Nixon Kennedy, Johnson • Appealed to elites and • Appealed to “New Deal business interests Karen McPherson Osher Institute Spring 2020 Coalition,” academics 158 158 5 3/30/2020 • Democrats Karen McPherson Osher Institute Spring 2020 159 159 Realigning Election – 1980 1976 1980 Blue denotes states won by Blue denotes states won by Carter, red denotes those won by Carter, red denotes those won by Ford Reagan Karen McPherson Osher Institute Spring 2020 160 160 6th Party System 1980-now Republicans Democrats • Devolution • Stronger central gov’t • Supply-side economics • Keynesian economics • American exceptionalism • Multinationalism • Midwest, Mountain, and • Northeast, Pacific coast, Southeast/Bible Belt urban centers • Reagan, Bush I and II • Clinton, Obama • Appealed to affluent voters, • Appealed to urbanites, corporations, social minorities, professionals, conservatives, blue collar social liberals Karen McPherson Osher Institute Spring 2020 161 161 6 3/30/2020 “Third” Parties in America • A “third” party has never really gained traction in American political history Karen McPherson Osher Institute Spring 2020 162 162 “Third” Parties in America • “Third parties are like bees – they sting and then they die” –Historian Richard Hofstadter Karen McPherson Osher Institute Spring 2020 163 163 • “Major parties have lived more for patronage than for principles; their goal has been to bind together a sufficiently large coalition of diverse interests to get into power; and once in power, to arrange sufficiently satisfactory compromises of interests to remain there. Minor parties have been attached to some special idea or interest, and they have generally expressed their positions through firm and identifiable programs and principles. Their function has not been to win or govern, but to agitate, educate, generate new ideas, and supply the dynamic element in our political life. When a third party's demands become popular enough, they are appropriated by one or both of the major parties and the third party disappears. Third parties are like bees: once they have stung, they die.” Karen McPherson Osher Institute Spring 2020 • Richard Hofstadter, American Historian » R 164 164 7 3/30/2020 Populism swallows the democratic party Karen McPherson Osher Institute Spring 2020 165 165 Karen McPherson Osher Institute Spring 2020 166 166 Karen McPherson Osher Institute Spring 2020 167 167 8 3/30/2020 Impact Of State Ballot Access Rules Total state affiliates for each political party, May 2018 Political Party Number of States Republican Party 51 Democratic Party 51 Libertarian Party 39 Green Party 27 Constitution Party 15 Karen McPherson Osher Institute Spring 2020 168 168 Types of Third Parties • Ideological – profess a radically “different” view of American society –Socialist, Socialist Labor, Socialist Workers, Communist Parties (1900-present, generally) –Libertarian Party (1972-present) –Green Party (1984-present) Karen McPherson Osher Institute Spring 2020 169 169 Types of Third Parties • One-Issue –Free Soil Party – 1850s –American (or Know-Nothing) Party – 1850s –Prohibition Party (1869-present) –Woman’s party – (1913-1920) • Tend to go away when the issue is resolved Karen McPherson Osher Institute Spring 2020 170 170 9 3/30/2020 Types of Third Parties • Economic Protest Parties –Greenback Party (1876-1884) –Populist Party (1892-1908) • Tend to get absorbed into one of the major parties Karen McPherson Osher Institute Spring 2020 171 171 Types of Third Parties • Factional Parties (split from major parties) –Split from the Republican Party • “Bull Moose” Progressive Party (1912) • LaFollette Progressive Party (1924) Karen McPherson Osher Institute Spring 2020 172 172 Types of Third Parties • Factional Parties (split from major parties –Split off from the Democratic Party • States Rights Party (Dixiecrats) – 1948 • Henry Wallace Progressive Party – 1948 • American Independent Party (George Wallace) – 1968 Karen McPherson Osher Institute Spring 2020 173 173 10 3/30/2020 Types of Third Parties • Factional Parties (split from major parties) –Split off from the Both Parties • Reform Party (Ross Perot) – 1992 Karen McPherson Osher Institute Spring 2020 174 174 2000 Presidential Election Karen McPherson Osher Institute Spring 2020 175 175 Karen McPherson Osher Institute Spring 2020 176 176 11 3/30/2020 2016 Presidential Election Karen McPherson Osher Institute Spring 2020 177 177 Future of American Parties • Is it time for another realignment? • What is the future of our existing party system? –People are generally unhappy with our existing party system Karen McPherson Osher Institute Spring 2020 178 178 Karen McPherson Osher Institute Spring 2020 179 179 12 3/30/2020 Karen McPherson Osher Institute Spring 2020 180 180 Karen McPherson Osher Institute Spring 2020 181 181 Karen McPherson Osher Institute Spring 2020 182 182 13 3/30/2020 Karen McPherson Osher Institute Spring 2020 183 183 Future of American Parties • Is it time for another realignment? • What is the future of our existing party system? – People are generally unhappy with our existing party system – We are unlikely to make fundamental change to our political system, so a third party is not the answer – We need to address campaign finance • The party that figures out how to appeal to women, minorities, and young people will be successful over the next 20 years. Karen McPherson Osher Institute Spring 2020 184 184 14.
Recommended publications
  • William Jennings Bryan and His Opposition to American Imperialism in the Commoner

    William Jennings Bryan and His Opposition to American Imperialism in the Commoner

    The Uncommon Commoner: William Jennings Bryan and his Opposition to American Imperialism in The Commoner by Dante Joseph Basista Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in the History Program YOUNGSTOWN STATE UNIVERSITY August, 2019 The Uncommon Commoner: William Jennings Bryan and his Opposition to American Imperialism in The Commoner Dante Joseph Basista I hereby release this thesis to the public. I understand that this thesis will be made available from the OhioLINK ETD Center and the Maag Library Circulation Desk for public access. I also authorize the University or other individuals to make copies of this thesis as needed for scholarly research. Signature: Dante Basista, Student Date Approvals: Dr. David Simonelli, Thesis Advisor Date Dr. Martha Pallante, Committee Member Date Dr. Donna DeBlasio, Committee Member Date Dr. Salvatore A. Sanders, Dean of Graduate Studies Date ABSTRACT This is a study of the correspondence and published writings of three-time Democratic Presidential nominee William Jennings Bryan in relation to his role in the anti-imperialist movement that opposed the US acquisition of the Philippines, Guam and Puerto Rico following the Spanish-American War. Historians have disagreed over whether Bryan was genuine in his opposition to an American empire in the 1900 presidential election and have overlooked the period following the election in which Bryan’s editorials opposing imperialism were a major part of his weekly newspaper, The Commoner. The argument is made that Bryan was authentic in his opposition to imperialism in the 1900 presidential election, as proven by his attention to the issue in the two years following his election loss.
  • Picking the Vice President

    Picking the Vice President

    Picking the Vice President Elaine C. Kamarck Brookings Institution Press Washington, D.C. Contents Introduction 4 1 The Balancing Model 6 The Vice Presidency as an “Arranged Marriage” 2 Breaking the Mold 14 From Arranged Marriages to Love Matches 3 The Partnership Model in Action 20 Al Gore Dick Cheney Joe Biden 4 Conclusion 33 Copyright 36 Introduction Throughout history, the vice president has been a pretty forlorn character, not unlike the fictional vice president Julia Louis-Dreyfus plays in the HBO seriesVEEP . In the first episode, Vice President Selina Meyer keeps asking her secretary whether the president has called. He hasn’t. She then walks into a U.S. senator’s office and asks of her old colleague, “What have I been missing here?” Without looking up from her computer, the senator responds, “Power.” Until recently, vice presidents were not very interesting nor was the relationship between presidents and their vice presidents very consequential—and for good reason. Historically, vice presidents have been understudies, have often been disliked or even despised by the president they served, and have been used by political parties, derided by journalists, and ridiculed by the public. The job of vice president has been so peripheral that VPs themselves have even made fun of the office. That’s because from the beginning of the nineteenth century until the last decade of the twentieth century, most vice presidents were chosen to “balance” the ticket. The balance in question could be geographic—a northern presidential candidate like John F. Kennedy of Massachusetts picked a southerner like Lyndon B.
  • The 2004 Election a Matter of Faith? 1 David E

    The 2004 Election a Matter of Faith? 1 David E

    10397-01_Ch01.qxd 3/26/07 10:41 AM Page 1 The 2004 Election A Matter of Faith? 1 David E. Campbell ew observers of American politics deny that in recent Fyears religion has come to play an increasingly important role in the nation’s elections, especially the presidential election. To some, per- haps many, religion may appear to be a new factor in national politics. But today’s focus on religion is really just a variation on what has been a common theme throughout U.S. history. In 1800, Thomas Jefferson had to deal with accusations that he was an atheist; in the late 1800s, William Jennings Bryan invoked biblical themes to support economic policy; in 1928, Al Smith faced anti-Catholic mobs on the campaign trail; in 1960, John F. Kennedy too had to forestall anti-Catholic sentiment that, while muted when compared with what Smith faced in 1928, lingered nonetheless. Religion, then, has long been a feature in national elections. Yet that does not mean that the religious cleavages of the past correspond to those of the pres- ent. Rather, the last thirty years have seen a re-sorting of the parties’ electoral coalitions along religious lines. No longer are Democrats and Republicans divided along the old lines, defined by whether they are Catholic or Protestant. Instead of religious denomination, the parties are divided by religious devo- tional style—that is, a way of being religious. People who are more devout— regardless of denomination—are more likely to favor the GOP. Obviously, such a statement is a generalization.
  • China's Political Party System

    China's Political Party System

    China’s Political Party System: Cooperation and Consultation The State Council Information Office of the People’s Republic of China June 2021 First Edition 2021 ISBN 978-7-119-12735-4 © Foreign Languages Press Co. Ltd., Beijing, China, 2021 Published by Foreign Languages Press Co. Ltd. 24 Baiwanzhuang Road, Beijing 100037, China Distributed by China International Book Trading Corporation 35 Chegongzhuang Xilu, Beijing 100044, China P.O. Box 399, Beijing, China Printed in the People’s Republic of China Contents Preamble 1 I. China’s Political Parties 3 II. A Unique Political Creation 10 III. Close Cooperation Between Political Parties 14 IV. China’s Political Party System Has Distinctive Characteristics and Strengths 16 V. The CPC Consults with Other Political Parties and Non-Affiliates 19 VI. The CPC Supports Other Political Parties and Non-Affiliates in Conducting Democratic Oversight 22 VII. The CPC Cooperates with Other Political Parties and Non-Affiliates in Governing the Country 24 VIII. Non-CPC Political Parties and Non-Affiliates Provide Advice on Economic and Social Development 27 IX. The CPPCC Is an Important Political and Organizational Platform in China’s Political Party System 30 Conclusion 33 Preamble A country’s political party system is a major component of its political framework and makes a critical contribution to democracy. The system best suited to a country is determined by its history, traditions, and realities. There are many types of political party system around the world, and there is not a single system that is good for all countries. The system of multiparty cooperation and political consultation under the leadership of the Communist Party of China (CPC) is a basic element of China’s political framework.
  • Supreme Court of the United States

    Supreme Court of the United States

    No. 19-524 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ROQUE DE LA FUENTE, AKA ROCKY, Petitioner, v. AlEX PADIllA, CALIFOrnIA SECRETARY OF STATE, et al., Respondents. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES CouRT OF AppEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRcuIT BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE PROFESSORS OF POLITICAL SCIENCE AND HISTORY IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER ALICia I. DEARN, ESQ. Counsel of Record 231 South Bemiston Avenue, Suite 850 Clayton, MO 63105 (314) 526-0040 [email protected] Counsel for Amici Curiae 292830 A (800) 274-3321 • (800) 359-6859 i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF CONTENTS..........................i TABLE OF CITED AUTHORITIES .............. ii INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ..................1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .................................6 ARGUMENT....................................7 I. CERTIORARI IS DESIRABLE BECAUSE THERE IS CONFUSION AMONG LOWER COURTS OVER WHETHER THE APPLY THE USAGE TEST ...........7 II. THE NINTH CIRCUIT ERRONEOUSLY STATED THAT BECAUSE MINOR PARTY PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES HAVE APPEARED ON THE CALIFORNIA BALLOT, THEREFORE IT IS NOT SIGNIFICANT THAT NO INDEPENDENT PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE HAS QUALIFIED SINCE 1992 ..............................15 CONCLUSION .................................20 ii TABLE OF CITED AUTHORITIES Page CASES: American Party v. Jernigan, 424 F.Supp. 943 (e.d. Ark. 1977)..................8 Arutunoff v. Oklahoma State Election Board, 687 F.2d 1375 (1982)...........................14 Bergland v. Harris, 767 F.2d 1551 (1985) ..........................8-9 Bradley v Mandel, 449 F. Supp. 983 (1978) ........................10 Citizens to Establish a Reform Party in Arkansas v. Priest, 970 F. Supp. 690 (e.d. Ark. 1996) .................8 Coffield v. Kemp, 599 F.3d 1276 (2010) ...........................12 Cowen v. Raffensperger, 1:17cv-4660 ..................................12 Dart v.
  • Indiana Magazine of History

    Indiana Magazine of History

    INDIANA MAGAZINE OF HISTORY - VOLUMEXXXI MARCH, 1935 NUMBER1 The Nomination of the Democratic Candidate in 1924 By SEXSONE. HUMPHREYS One of the strangest among the phenomena of American party history is the Democratic National Convention of 1924, in which all the elements that tend to divide the Democratic party combined to produce a bitterness such as had never been seen in a political convention before and to send the number of ballots required to name a candidate to the record figure of 103. Historians are familiar with the problems that caused the impasse and have frequently analyzed their significance. Students of politics find in the convention a demonstration of how diverse are the interests represented in the Democratic party. There is one question regarding the convention, how- ever, that has largely gone unanswered, and frequently un- asked. That is the question of how it happened that John W. Davis became the nominee of the party. This is an impor- tant question, for it represents the first time since 1860 that the party had gone south of the Mason-Dixon line for its candidate, unless Woodrow Wilson, born in Virginia, but nominated from New Jersey, be considered an exception. The nomination indicates also the triumph of the metropolitan element in the party that was to lead it to defeat in 1928. John W. Davis was the second choice, not of the forces which had kept William G. McAdoo in the lead during most of the convention, but of the forces of A1 Smith-the urban, Catholic, and financial interests in the party.
  • How Electoral Agency Shapes the Political Logic of Costs and Benefits

    How Electoral Agency Shapes the Political Logic of Costs and Benefits

    Coalition Parties versus Coalitions of Parties: How Electoral Agency Shapes the Political Logic of Costs and Benefits by Kathleen Bawn Department of Political Science UCLA and Frances Rosenbluth Department of Political Science Yale University Draft 1.10 August 2002 Abstract This paper argues that governments formed from post-election coalitions (majority coalition governments in PR systems) and pre-election coalitions (majority parties in SMD systems) aggregate the interests of voters in systematically different ways. We show that the multiple policy dimensional policy space that emerges from PR rules motivate parties in the government coalition to logroll projects among themselves without internalizing the costs of those projects in the same way that a majoritarian party would be forced to do. The size of government should therefore tend to be larger in PR systems. We further show that, although centrifugal electoral incentives dominate in PR systems, some incentives towards coalescence across groups and across parties exist through the greater likelihood that large parties have in becoming a member of a minimal winning coalition of parties. This paper was prepared for presentation at the annual meetings of the American Political Science Association, held in Boston, Massachusetts, August 28-September 2. Frances Rosenbluth would like to thank the Yale Provost Office and the Yale Leitner Program in International Political Economy for funding. We gratefully acknowledge the able research assistance of Abbie Erler and Mathias Hounpke in conducting this research. Introduction Democratic government is government by coalition. In many parliamentary systems, governments are explicit multi-party coalitions. Even in cases of single party government, a party that wins a parliamentary majority represents -- almost by definition -- a coalition of interests.
  • OFFICIAL 2020 PRESIDENTIAL GENERAL ELECTION RESULTS General Election Date: 11/03/2020 OFFICIAL 2016 PRESIDENTIAL GENERAL ELECTION RESULTS

    OFFICIAL 2020 PRESIDENTIAL GENERAL ELECTION RESULTS General Election Date: 11/03/2020 OFFICIAL 2016 PRESIDENTIAL GENERAL ELECTION RESULTS

    OFFICIAL 2020 PRESIDENTIAL GENERAL ELECTION RESULTS General Election Date: 11/03/2020 OFFICIAL 2016 PRESIDENTIAL GENERAL ELECTION RESULTS General Election Date: 11/08/2016 Source: State Elections Offices* SOURCE: State Elections Offices* STATE ELECTORAL ELECTORAL VOTES CAST FOR ELECTORAL VOTES CAST FOR VOTES JOSEPH R. BIDEN (D) DONALD J. TRUMP (R) AL 9 9 AK 3 3 AZ 11 11 AR 6 6 CA 55 55 CO 9 9 CT 7 7 DE 3 3 DC 3 3 FL 29 29 GA 16 16 HI 4 4 ID 4 4 IL 20 20 IN 11 11 IA 6 6 KS 6 6 KY 8 8 LA 8 8 ME 4 3 1 MD 10 10 MA 11 11 MI 16 16 MN 10 10 MS 6 6 MO 10 10 MT 3 3 NE 5 1 4 NV 6 6 NH 4 4 NJ 14 14 NM 5 5 NY 29 29 NC 15 15 ND 3 3 OH 18 18 OK 7 7 OR 7 7 PA 20 20 RI 4 4 SC 9 9 SD 3 3 TN 11 11 TX 38 38 UT 6 6 VT 3 3 VA 13 13 WA 12 12 WV 5 5 WI 10 10 WY 3 3 Total: 538 306 232 Total Electoral Votes Needed to Win = 270 - Page 1 of 12 - OFFICIAL 2020 PRESIDENTIAL GENERAL ELECTION RESULTS General Election Date: 11/03/2020 SOURCE: State Elections Offices* STATE BIDEN BLANKENSHIP BODDIE CARROLL CHARLES AL 849,624 AK 153,778 1,127 AZ 1,672,143 13 AR 423,932 2,108 1,713 CA 11,110,250 2,605 559 CO 1,804,352 5,061 2,515 2,011 CT 1,080,831 219 11 DE 296,268 1 87 8 DC 317,323 FL 5,297,045 3,902 854 GA 2,473,633 61 8 701 65 HI 366,130 931 ID 287,021 1,886 163 IL 3,471,915 18 9,548 75 IN 1,242,416 895 IA 759,061 1,707 KS 570,323 KY 772,474 7 408 43 LA 856,034 860 1,125 2,497 ME 435,072 MD 1,985,023 4 795 30 MA 2,382,202 MI 2,804,040 7,235 963 MN 1,717,077 75 1,037 112 MS 539,398 1,279 1,161 MO 1,253,014 3,919 664 MT 244,786 23 NE 374,583 NV 703,486 3,138 NH 424,937
  • TRANSNATIONAL PARTY ACTIVITY and PORTUGAL's RELATIONS with the EUROPEAN COMMUNITY

    TRANSNATIONAL PARTY ACTIVITY and PORTUGAL's RELATIONS with the EUROPEAN COMMUNITY

    TRANSNATIONAL PARTY ACTIVITY and PORTUGAL'S RELATIONS WITH THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY Juliet Antunes Sablosky Georgetown University Paper Prepared for Delivery at the Fourth Biennial International Conference of The European Community Studies Association May 11-14, 1995 Charleston, South Carolina This paper analyzes the interaction of the domestic and international systems during Portugal's transition to democracy in the 1970's. It focuses on the role which the European Community played in the process of democratization there, using transnational party activity as a prism through which to study the complex set of domestic and international variables at work in that process. The paper responds to the growing interest in the role of the European Community as a political actor, particularly in its efforts to support democratization in aspiring member states. The Portuguese case, one of the first in which the EC played such a role, offers new insights into how EC related party activity can affect policy-making at national and international levels. The case study centers on the Portuguese Socialist Party (PS) and its relationship with the socialist parties1 in EC member states, with the Confederation of the Socialist Parties of the European Community and the Socialist Group in the European Parliament. Its central thesis is that transnational party activity affected not only EC policy making in regard to Portugal, but had demonstrable effects on the domestic political system as well. Using both interdependence and linkages theory as its base, the paper builds on earlier work by Geoffrey Pridham (1990, 1991), Laurence Whitehead (1986, 1991) and others, on the EC's role in democratization in Southern Europe.
  • Durham E-Theses

    Durham E-Theses

    Durham E-Theses Third parties in twentieth century American politics Sumner, C. K. How to cite: Sumner, C. K. (1969) Third parties in twentieth century American politics, Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/9989/ Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details. Academic Support Oce, Durham University, University Oce, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 0191 334 6107 http://etheses.dur.ac.uk "THIRD PARTIES IN TWENTIETH CENTURY AMERICAN POLITICS" THESIS PGR AS M. A. DEGREE PRESENTED EOT CK. SOMBER (ST.CUTHBERT«S) • JTJLT, 1969. The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. No quotation from it should be published without his prior written consent and information derived from it should be acknowledged. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. INTRODUCTION. PART 1 - THE PROGRESSIVE PARTIES. 1. THE "BOLL MOOSE" PROQRESSIVES. 2. THE CANDIDACY CP ROBERT M. L& FQLLETTE. * 3. THE PEOPLE'S PROGRESSIVE PARTI. PART 2 - THE SOCIALIST PARTY OF AMERICA* PART 3 * PARTIES OF LIMITED GEOGRAPHICAL APPEAL.
  • Free Soil Movement in Illinois

    Free Soil Movement in Illinois

    A HISTORY OF THE FREE SOIL MOVEMENT IN ILLINOIS, TOGETHER WITH A REVIEW OE THE KINDRED POLITICAL A N T I-M E R Y MOVEMENTS CULMINATING IN THE EORMATION OE THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, . by . AUREKA BELLE KILER. THE FOR THE DEGREE OF A. B„ COLLEGE OF LFl'ERATURE AND ARTS. UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS. 1896. PRESS OF THE GAZETTE CHAMPAIGN U, A HISTORY OP THE PREE-SOIL MOVEMENT IN ILLINOIS. TOGETHER WITH A REVIEW OP THE KINDRED POLITICAL ANTI-SLAVERY MOVEMENTS CULMINATING IN THE FORMATION OP THE REPUBLICAN PARTY Table of Contents. Cause of the organization of the Free-Soil party. Names of leaders. Nomination of Taylor by the Whigs. Purposes of the new party. Convention held at Buffalo in 1848. Principles of this party. Martin Van Buren nominated for President. Number of Free-Soil votes cast. Convention of 1852, at Pittsburgh. John P. Hale nominated for President. Votes cast in State and Nation. Decrease in number of votes cast. This the last Free-Soil convention held. Political and Conscientious Free-Soilers. Illinois. No slave State, still there were slaves. Extinct by 1850. Administration of Governor Coles. Elements in the population of the State. Influence of the foreigners. Attitude toward Abolitionists. Judge Cunningham’s experience. Votes cast for Birney, Abolition candidate for President, in 1840 and ’44. Counties in the 4th Congressional District. Abolition votes cast in the 4th district in ’43, *44, '46, •48, for Congressmen. Presidential votes cast in 1848 in this district. Votes were cast for Van Buren and not the principle. Largest anti-Slavery vote ever cast in Illinois.
  • Voting for Minor Parties in the Antebellum Midwest

    Voting for Minor Parties in the Antebellum Midwest

    Voting for Minor Parties in the Antebellum Midwest Ray M. Shortridge" During the two decades preceeding the Civil War, three important minor parties contested presidential elections in the Midwest. These parties raised issues which the major parties, the Democrats and Whigs, chose to ignore. Two of the minor parties, the Liberty party and the Free Soil party, injected antislaveryism into presidential elections in 1844, 1848, and 1852; the third, the American party, campaigned on nativist principles in 1856. Although the Democrats and Whigs were strongly entrenched in the region, the minor parties exerted significant influence in midwestern politics. Midwesterners played important roles in the development of antislavery doc- trines and in the organization of the antislavery parties.' The electorate in the region responded to these efforts by the lead- ers: from 2.2 percent to 7.6 percent of the estimated eligible electorate in the Midwest voted for the Liberty or Free Soil parties in the presidential elections from 1844 to 1852.2 Al- though the major strength of the nativist Know Nothing movement lay elsewhere, Know Nothing or American party candidates garnered votes from 6.9 percent of the Midwest's estimated electorate in 1856. Moreover, in 1860 both the anti- * Ray M. Shortridge is a managing partner of Shortridge Farms, Medora, Indiana, and adjunct assistant professor of political science, University of Louisville. He wishes to acknowledge the helpful criticism of Jerome Clubb, Paul Kleppner, and Erik Austin. For example see Dwight L. Dumond, Antislavery: The Crusade for Free- dom in America (Ann Arbor, 1961); Eric Foner, Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men: The Ideology of the Republican Party before the Civil War (New York, 1970), 73-102.